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

[Jainarayan]

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.

Perhaps not, but if he's using a religious excuse, Jesus clearly says divorce and sex outside of marriage are sinful. Those persons, by the baker's reasoning should be denied service. It shouldn't take a leap of imagination to guess who is divorced and/or sexually active outside of marriage.

 

[Nous]

I wonder if a gay bakery owner could be required to bake a cake with an anti-gay message?

No. The Court of Appeals opinion notes the case of the baker who refused to put hateful homophobic messages on a cake.

Could a Jewish bakery owner be forced to make a Nazi wedding cake?

No. Public accommodation laws do not prohibit discrimination on the basis of politicial ideology (or whatever one wishes to call Nazism).

So far, the iconic legal cases have been those favoring progressive values.

I guess the anti-discrimination provisions of public accommodation laws epitomize "progrressive values".

 

[Jainarayan]

Maybe he just liked having his weekends free.

Very possibly.

 

[Nous]

I say let them turn away who they want, with the caveat that it must be clearly displayed and presented. Let the market determine whether they will be able to stay in business or not. I expect, most of the time, these places would lose far more business than they gained if everyone knew their discrimination policies up front.

As noted, CADA also prohibts a business to display such a notice of refusal of service. Water fountains with "Whites only" signs really don't accomoplish what public accommodations laws are intended to accomplish. And, in fact, in plenty of small towns all bakeries and other businesses would have "No gays" signs.

 

[Nous]

I'd be with you, but I have one condition.....
Open season on the lawyers (rimfire or centerfire).

Encouraging deadly violence against a group is irrational and condemnatory. Lawyers do get shot by people who hate lawyers.

 

[Nous]

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).

My and my husband's wedding cake had no such decoration or message.

In any case, as the COA noted, if a wedding cake expresses any celebratory message, onlookers are most likely to attribute it to the customer, not the baker.

 

[Revoltingest]

No. The Court of Appeals opinion notes the case of the baker who refused to put hateful homophobic messages on a cake.

Interesting.
What if the anti-gay message weren't hateful?
It could be one about helping them convert to hetero status.
A message of (misguided) love, eh.

 

[Nous]

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?

Yes. And none of the signs you posted suggest any approval of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Encouraging deadly violence against a group is irrational and condemnatory.

Not if it's Shakespearian.

Lawyers do get shot by people who hate lawyers.

That's because there's no season for it.

 

[Nous]

Are you sure gays are a protected group?

The relevant part of CADA is quoted in the OP. It prohibits discrimination in services on the basis of a variety of characteristics, sexual orientation being one.

 

[Nous]

Not if it's Shakespearian.

That was a facetious and satirical line spoken by Dick the Butcher. The band of idiots failed in their attempt to overthrow the government. Obviously the author of the Shakespearean corpus, who could barely utter a sentence without reference to the law, was not advocating that lawyers be killed.

How would you like it if people advocated that engineers be shot, and it actually happened, with fatal results?

 

[Nous]

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.

Oh, I didn't know that. What year was this?

It really amazes me how quickly people's attitudes changed about equal marriage rights.

 

[Nous]

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.

I'm not sure I recall any ordinances that provided insurance benefits for same-sex couples only. In any case, the benefits provided for the same-sex partners of employees was because they couldn't get married.

 

[columbus]

Oh, I didn't know that. What year was this?

It really amazes me how quickly people's attitudes changed about equal marriage rights.

About 3 years ago, IIRC. Not really that long ago.

RFRA was a subsequent attempt to "placate the base". Lots of conservatives around here were furious when the Republicans ignominiously dumped the amendment at the last minute.

I was laughing.
Tom

 

[Nous]

Perhaps not, but if he's using a religious excuse, Jesus clearly says divorce and sex outside of marriage are sinful. Those persons, by the baker's reasoning should be denied service. It shouldn't take a leap of imagination to guess who is divorced and/or sexually active outside of marriage.

Yes, I agree. Indeed, I noted as much in the OP. He also doesn't discriminate against criminals--you would think he should consider them as sinful as he considers two loving, committed gay people attempting to form a family.

 

[Nous]

About 3 years ago, IIRC. Not really that long ago.

RFRA was a subsequent attempt to "placate the base". Lots of conservatives around here were furious when the Republicans ignominiously dumped the amendment at the last minute.

I was laughing.
Tom

Why was Indiana so late on the anti-marriage amendment bandwagon? There were several states that passed amendments in 2004, immediate after Massachusetts' Goodridge.

 

[Nous]

Interesting.
What if the anti-gay message weren't hateful?
It could be one about helping them convert to hetero status.
A message of (misguided) love, eh.

There is obviously a degree of disapproval and dislike in recommending that someone "convert" his/her sexual orientation.

I doubt a civil rights commission or judge would consider refusal to put a message on such a cake to be discrimination on the basis of . . . . what? On what basis would the baker be discriminating?

 

[columbus]

Why was Indiana so late on the anti-marriage amendment bandwagon? There were several states that passed amendments in 2004, immediate after Massachusetts' Goodridge.

I dunno.
The process of amending the Constitution here is pretty arduous. The exact same amendment has to be passed by two separate legislatures with an election in between. Then scheduled for a vote along with the general election. It takes years.
I also don't think anyone had taken the possibility of marriage equality seriously before Pence. It was just not possible.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

That was a facetious and satirical line spoken by Dick the Butcher. The band of idiots failed in their attempt to overthrow the government. Obviously the author of the Shakespearean corpus, who could barely utter a sentence without reference to the law, was not advocating that lawyers be killed.

How would you like it if people advocated that engineers be shot, and it actually happened, with fatal results?

I suspect you're missing the humor behind government
sanctioned hunting of the USA's largest criminal class.
Btw, everyone loves engineers.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure I recall any ordinances that provided insurance benefits for same-sex couples only.

You wouldn't remember it because it was local...just my town (Ann Arbor MI).

In any case, the benefits provided for the same-sex partners of employees was because they couldn't get married.

There are equally committed straight couples who don't marry for various good reasons.
So I don't buy the argument that they should be denied a benefit conferred upon gays.

But my town is run by hypocrities....the infamous "illiberal liberal" types.
Our human rights ordinance prohibits discrimination on the basis of family status,
but zoning laws & housing codes require discriminatioon on the basis of family status.
Educational afilliation, age, & gender are also protected, but they don't enforce the
law when discounts are granted to students, seniors & women.
Go figure.