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

[Nous]

You're essentially arguing that there's a good reason to discriminate based upon sexual orientation.

False.

It does indeed address a problem.
But there's still no reason to deny committed straight unmarried couples employee
benefits reserved for married straight couples & gay unmarried couples.

To correct a problem is one of the best reasons for enacting an ordinance. That's what the city was trying to do in the small way that it could. Different-sex couples had access to those insurance benefits, which they could acquire simply by getting married. Same-sex couples who were married in all but the state's recognition were not allowed such access.

They do typically exempt themselves from laws.
Why bring it up?

I was responding to your claims that zoning laws are or should be governed by public accommodation laws.

 

[Nous]

Here is a poll showing that less than half of Americastanians think people are born gay.

That doesn't mean that they believe non-heterosexual orientiation is a disease that needs to be cured. But what does it matter? 60 million Americans voted for Trump for President, so you can't expect much intelligent coming from such a population.

It's complicated.
I'm not prepared to set limits.
But undoubtedly limits will be addressed by courts & legislators.
It will be messy.

Prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race hasn't been "messy," has it?

 

[Nous]

Public Accommodation Law Civil Rights Law of 1964 is based on race, color, religion, or national origin.
My right to carry a concealed weapon is based on my Constitutional right to own a firearm and the legal right given to me by my state to do so. However I do realize that most states have laws that say a business can ban weapons. What I'm saying is why can they? Are they not violating my "rights"?

Of course not. A peculiar right that your state may give you but which isn't recognized federally does not accompany you in other states that do not recognize that right.

 

[Revoltingest]

False.

It's how your argument appears.

To correct a problem is one of the best reasons for enacting an ordinance. That's what the city was trying to do in the small way that it could. Different-sex couples had access to those insurance benefits, which they could acquire simply by getting married. Same-sex couples who were married in all but the state's recognition were not allowed such access.

Since different sex couples who are unmarried are denied the benefits afforded same
sex unmarried couples, this would be discrimination based upon sexual orientation.
Do you see a reason to exclude unmarried straight couples from benefits?

I was responding to your claims that zoning laws are or should be governed by public accommodation laws.

When they conflict, that should be resolved.
State law would trump local law.

 

[Revoltingest]

That doesn't mean that they believe non-heterosexual orientiation is a disease that needs to be cured. But what does it matter? 60 million Americans voted for Trump for President, so you can't expect much intelligent coming from such a population.

Deflection by invoking Trumpophobia bespeaks a losing argument.

Prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race hasn't been "messy," has it?

That is just one of many protections.
Its simplicity doesn't mean that all new ones will be so straightforward.
The right to have a message on a cake v denying a message on a cake portends greater difficulty.

 

[Nous]

It's how your argument appears.

Since different sex couples who are unmarried are denied the benefits afforded same
sex unmarried couples, this would be discrimination based upon sexual orientation.
Do you see a reason to exclude unmarried straight couples from benefits?

Nothing I have said implies that "there is good reason to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation."

I am skeptical that your claims about the Ann Arbor ordinance are true. Bassett v. Snyder says that Ann Arbor adopted a domestic partner plan in which an employee could designate a domestic partner of either sex--i.e., the plan did not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation: Judge David Lawson's ruling on domestic partner benefits | Intermediate Scrutiny | Summary Judgment

When they conflict, that should be resolved.
State law would trump local law.

I'll say it again: Public accommodations laws do not pertain to legislatures or legislative acts.

 

[Nous]

That is just one of many protections.
Its simplicity doesn't mean that all new ones will be so straightforward.

What reason should public accommodations laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation be more "messy" than prohibiting such discrimination on the basis of race?

The right to have a message on a cake v denying a message on a cake portends greater difficulty.

I have no idea what law you are referring to. Public accommodations laws prohibit public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of certain characteristics.

 

[esmith]

Of course not. A peculiar right that your state may give you but which isn't recognized federally does not accompany you in other states that do not recognize that right.

Ah, I see now. A word in your above statement shows your bias against concealed carry and even possibly firearms.

But back to my Constitutional right and my legal right.
Are you saying that business in my State must recognize my legal right to carry? Therefore if they say I can not have a concealed weapon on my person they are violating my rights?
And any State that recognizes my permit affords me the same rights that a citizen of that State has.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nothing I have said implies that "there is good reason to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation."

True, you didn't.
But your arguing in favor of the city's policy suggested that I ask.
Btw, you didn't answer

I am skeptical that your claims about the Ann Arbor ordinance are true.

Meh....

 

[SomeRandom]

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.

Never said they were. I was pointing out said baker's hypocrisy, which is frowned upon by Jesus. I mean correct me if I'm wrong but his justification for denying service to the gay couple was religiously motivated right? Then he should apply the same standards to all customers, lest he look like a douche hiding behind the Bible like a coward.

 

[Altfish]

Oh I see you only want rights for people that you agree with. As far as beer and drive drunk is a totally different matter. First were you stopped from purchasing the beer. What you do with that beer is a different matter.

You totally ignored my comments about 'responsibility'

 

[esmith]

You totally ignored my comments about 'responsibility'

Yes, everyone should be responsible for their actions. However, I just disregarded it since all you said was people should be responsible, that is a given. But in what manner are you referencing your statement to?

 

[Nous]

Ah, I see now. A word in your above statement shows your bias against concealed carry and even possibly firearms.

You don't see any word in my post that shows any error in what I've said about CCW or firearms, do you?

But back to my Constitutional right and my legal right.
Are you saying that business in my State must recognize my legal right to carry? Therefore if they say I can not have a concealed weapon on my person they are violating my rights?

No. As the Ninth Circuit stated in Peruta v. San Diego, "The right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment."

 

[Nous]

True, you didn't.
But your arguing in favor of the city's policy suggested that I ask.
Btw, you didn't answer

Meh....

Again, as far as I know, the Ann Arbor ordinance or policy that you are referring to did (or does) not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

[Nous]

Never said they were. I was pointing out said baker's hypocrisy, which is frowned upon by Jesus. I mean correct me if I'm wrong but his justification for denying service to the gay couple was religiously motivated right? Then he should apply the same standards to all customers, lest he look like a douche hiding behind the Bible like a coward.

Yes, I agree about Phillips' hypocrisy--I noted it also in the OP. By "leg to stand on" I thought you were referring to a legal leg to stand on.

 

[Revoltingest]

Again, as far as I know, the Ann Arbor ordinance or policy that you are referring to did (or does) not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

We'll agree to disagree on that.

 

[esmith]

You don't see any word in my post that shows any error in what I've said about CCW or firearms, do you?

No, what I said was "Ah, I see now. A word in your above statement shows your bias against concealed carry and even possibly firearms." See highlighted word below. However, nothing you wrote is incorrect. Hopefully Congressman Richard Hudson's bill will correct that.

Of course not. A peculiar right that your state may give you but which isn't recognized federally does not accompany you in other states that do not recognize that right.

No. As the Ninth Circuit stated in Peruta v. San Diego, "The right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment."

Correct. But the right to carry for all permitted citizens in all States and the District of Columbia is still a possibility.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I think there's a difference between making a gay wedding cake and making a wedding cake for gay people.

I agree with you here.

If the wedding cake is indistinguishable from a wedding cake for straight people, then the bakery owner is merely discriminating against people he will sell to. It has nothing to do with speech.

This is where you lose me.

Consider this question... what if the customer was a straight person (i.e. the parents of one of the grooms) buying the cake for a gay wedding? It would be tough to sell the line that the Christian bakery owner is discriminating against the people he will sell to, if the people doing the buying are straight.

Another question to consider: if this were a birthday cake, would he have refused to sell it because the buyers are gay? If not, it would be tough to sell the line that the Christian bakery owner is discriminating against the people he will sell to.

If a business owner doesn't want to sell its services for an event it doesn't want to participate in, why should it be forced to?

If gun makers refuse to sell guns to a state's police force because they don't like that state's gun laws, should they be forced to sell them anyway?

If drug companies refuse to sell the drugs to the prisons who want to use them for lethal injection, should they be forced to sell them anyway?

Let the market decide the fate of such business, not the courts. If a business gets a reputation for not wanting to cater to gay weddings, and it goes out of business because outraged potential customers refuse to shop there, then so be it. If such a reputation isn't enough to shut down the establishment, and they can keep enough customers to be successful, then so be it.

 

[Mister Emu]

So, are Jack Phillips' claims that the Colorado public accommodations law violates his Free Speech and Free Exercise rights truly different than those of the proprietors of Piggie Park Enterprise?

It seems to me that there might be a difference in that Phillips' claim is that the behavior he is being compelled to is participation in what is widely regarded as a religious activity. If it is determined that by baking the ceremonial cake he is participating or advancing a religious activity he is intrinsically opposed to, would that serve legally as a differentiating factor? Has that been addressed before by the court?

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.

Thankfully, legal legs to stand on don't depend on your outside interpretation of religious obligation.

 

[SomeRandom]

Thankfully, legal legs to stand on don't depend on your outside interpretation of religious obligation.

Religious obligation? He's baking a cake, not presiding over the marriage ceremony. Hindus don't make a big song and dance about serving people beef products, there are Muslims who work in Deli departments selling pork products without stamping their feet like tantrum throwing toddlers. Christians are being real "special snowflakes" in this particular scenario, as far as I can see. And I say that as someone who comes from a mostly Christian/Catholic family.