This was unconstitutional

[BSM1]

Drugs are illegal. Gay weddings are not.
There is no comparison to draw between "I won't bake a cake for a gay wedding because my religion is against homosexuality" and "I won't offer my services to protect drug operations because they are illegal." And offering such services to an illegal operations could also potentially make you an accomplice and an accessory to crime.

But there was never any charges but I had my suspicions. Later they were charged and convicted. Should I have been forced to provide the service before the charges were brought?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But there was never any charges but I had my suspicions. Later they were charged and convicted. Should I have been forced to provide the service before the charges were brought?

Because it was over illegal activities, no. Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is not an illegal activity.
As I said, the two are not comparable.

 

[fantome profane]

Could you quote or cite that law for us?

Here.
Civil Rights Act of 1964

The bill was called for by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963,[7] in which he asked for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments",

 

[muichimotsu]

So how about the right to refuse to bake a cake? Should the government force to go against your religious or moral beliefs?

The issue is what the business is considered in terms of public accommodation laws, methinks. Make it private and you have no issues. Or there's a possibility of making a further nuance in relation to what are considered artistic businesses, rather than general services.

 

[Jainarayan]

Could you quote or cite that law for us?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregationin schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

Wikipedia.

 

[Jainarayan]

Here.
Civil Rights Act of 1964

You beat me to it.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

But there was never any charges but I had my suspicions. Later they were charged and convicted. Should I have been forced to provide the service before the charges were brought?

Professional services have rather more latitude in deciding whether or not to take on individual clients than do more general services and retail. While they are not supposed to discriminate, many professionals, such as lawyers, may find it easy to be selective in taking on new clients, whereas wedding photographers or cake bakers, and the operators of meeting halls may find turning away more than a very occasional client to be very detrimental to their business interests.

 

[Revoltingest]

Could you quote or cite that law for us?

Every real estate broker knows...
Civil Rights Act of 1866 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pudding]

Bakery A's notice board in front of their shop: Only religion A's believer are allows to buy cakes in our shop, thank you.

Bakery B's notice board in front of their shop: Only religion B's believer are allows to buy cakes in our shop, thank you.

Bakery C's notice board in front of their shop: Only religion C's believer are allows to buy cakes in our shop, thank you.

Bakery D/E/F...etc...

Is this action reasonable? What is the reason behind the action? Is that reason reasonable?

 

[BSM1]

Here.
Civil Rights Act of 1964

Every real estate broker knows...
Civil Rights Act of 1866 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think you might want to go back and read the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nowhere does it say anything about discrimination against customers by private businesses unless that business is providing lodging or is engaged in interstate commerce.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you might want to go back and read the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nowhere does it say anything about discrimination against customers by private businesses unless that business is providing lodging or is engaged in interstate commerce.

Private businesses which serve the public are "public accommodations" under the 1964 law (Title 2).

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I think you might want to go back and read the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nowhere does it say anything about discrimination against customers by private businesses unless that business is providing lodging or is engaged in interstate commerce.

Yes, in the 1950s the Supreme Court ruled, and Congress in many different regulatory laws, including the Civil Rights Act, concluded that essentially no business in the United States is any longer local or in-state, because customers can come from anywhere, and the supplies and merchandise, etc., used in commerce can come from across state boundaries. It was on that basis that the federal government, under its power to regulate national business activities (The commerce clause of Article I, Section 8) intended to regulate businesses engaged in interstate commerce, which included applying civil rights to those businesses: if you are in business to sell to the public, you cannot discriminate. If you want to only sell to certain groups of people, you must become a private club--which severely limits your business potential.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think you might want to go back and read the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nowhere does it say anything about discrimination against customers by private businesses unless that business is providing lodging or is engaged in interstate commerce.

Realistically, how many businesses do not deal in interstate commerce? Minimum wage only applies to places dealing in interstate commerce, but that is still pretty much every business, especially in today's highly mobile society.

 

[Revoltingest]

Realistically, how many businesses do not deal in interstate commerce? Minimum wage only applies to places dealing in interstate commerce, but that is still pretty much every business, especially in today's highly mobile society.

This is the fundamental problem of the "federalization of all things".
"Interstate commerce" once meant commerce which happened across state lines.
Now it means anything which involves anyone or anything from another state.
Example:
Using your phone to defraud your neighbor is a fed crime if the electricity powering it was generated in another state.
This is one way of growing the police state without any de juro change in the law.

 

[fantome profane]

This is the fundamental problem of the "federalization of all things".
"Interstate commerce" once meant commerce which happened across state lines.
Now it means anything which involves anyone or anything from another state.
Example:
Using your phone to defraud your neighbor is a fed crime if the electricity powering it was generated in another state.
This is one way of growing the police state without any de juro change in the law.

And with any business that is open to the general public there is always the possibility that on any given day a customer may walk through your doors who is from another state. If you sell them a slice of pizza that qualifies as interstate commerce.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"Interstate commerce" once meant commerce which happened across state lines.

And everything from shipping and receiving supplies, franchise headquarters in another state, online sales, and a frequent rate of interstate travel, what are realistically the odds that any given business is not involved with interstate commerce?

 

[Revoltingest]

And with any business that is open to the general public there is always the possibility that on any given day a customer may walk through your doors who is from another state. If you sell them a slice of pizza that qualifies as interstate commerce.

And everything from shipping and receiving supplies, franchise headquarters in another state, online sales, and a frequent rate of interstate travel, what are realistically the odds that any given business is not involved with interstate commerce?

The founders are likely spinning in their graves about how "interstate commerce" applies to all things, eg, minimum wage.
And then there's....
Obamacare Is Unconstitutional | Cato Institute

 

[Revoltingest]

Realistically, how many businesses do not deal in interstate commerce? Minimum wage only applies to places dealing in interstate commerce, but that is still pretty much every business, especially in today's highly mobile society.

That relies upon a corruption of the framers' intent behind "interstate commerce".
As a landlord, I have tenants from out of state, & I buy materials which were manufactured out of state.
But all transactions are local (not interstate), so there is no opportunity for another state to charge a duty.
Real "interstate commerce" would be between my vendor (here) & his supplier (out of state).

 

[dgirl1986]

there's one of those facebook meme's that asks if a baker is participating in a same-sex wedding by selling a cake, is a gun seller participating in a murder if they sell a gun that's used to kill people?

LOL