5 ms·

This discussion has been rehashed over and over again, but you're wrong on the facts of this case. The owner claimed that he would bake any cake, but the evide

This discussion has been rehashed over and over again, but you're wrong on the facts of this case. The owner claimed that he would bake any cake, but the evidence shows he refused before they discussed any styling or even what the cake was. He would sell them cupcakes or prebaked items, but wouldn't bake any cake, arguing it was compelled speech. The problem is that in the absence of asking for a cake which specifically mentions gay people, the owner's line of argumentation works equally well for refusing to cook a burger for black people at a diner. By being a business owner in a community, you give up certain civil liberties because you have increased power to infringe upon the civil rights of others. Your analogies all fail because they consider situations where the customer asks the seller for a different, non-standard product. But that didn't happen; they were refused before any products were discussed.

rayiner 4y ago
> By being a business owner in a community, you give up certain civil liberties because you have increased power to infringe upon the civil rights of others. Big [citation needed] here. The Constitution doesn’t say you give up your rights by being a business owner and participating in the economy.
- three_seagrass 4y ago
  Constitution doesn't matter when it's federal law. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: > Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_II%E2%80%94public_accommodations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title...
  - barry-cotter 4y ago
    > Constitution doesn't matter when it's federal law. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: The US constitution overrides other US laws, not the other way around.
    - three_seagrass 4y ago
      Then cite where the constitution explicitly protects discrimination against protected classes. The problem citing the constitution here is it's an argument from ignorance. You can't ignore federal laws just because the constitution doesn't say anything about them.
      - jolux 4y ago
        > You can't ignore federal laws just because the constitution doesn't say anything about them. Not unless you're Sam Alito, no.
      - Supermancho 4y ago
        > Constitution doesn't matter when it's federal law. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 > The US constitution overrides other US laws, not the other way around. > Then cite where the constitution explicitly protects discrimination against protected classes. That reply was not about protected classes, per se. Please don't strawman off constructive criticism. Acknowledge you made a bad assertion or ignore it as irrelevant to your point.
        three_seagrass 4y ago
        - Asking where the constitution talks about protected classes is a loaded question, because it's protected by federal law. - Stating the constitution overrides federal law is an argument from ignorance, because the constitution doesn't say anything about discrimination against protected classes to override it with. Selectively ignoring the context of this conversation (i.e. "it's not about that per SE") to make my comment look like an unrelated straw man is cherry picking. The problem with constitutionalists declaring freedom of association here is that the courts have repeatedly, undeniably upheld that the federal laws protecting civil rights are more important than the centuries old document (or, in a way, linked to the 14th amendment).
        Supermancho 4y ago
        > Constitution doesn't matter when it's federal law. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 > The US constitution overrides other US laws, not the other way around. > Stating the constitution overrides federal law is an argument from ignorance, It is not an argument from ignorance. There was no argument about discrimination made. There was a reply (a correction) to point out a flaw in your argument. You are intentionally trying to pretend there was no error in your own argument by circling back to an orthogonal point. It was simply incorrect on its own to say "Constitution doesn't matter when it's federal law." I don't understand why you are bending over backwards, to defend something that doesn't matter to the points that matter to you, at all. You have been striking out against people who are trying to help you have a stronger argument, by pointing out weakness. That's something worth thinking about in the future. GL with whatever.
  - syshum 4y ago
  - ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
    Relevantly to this discussion, the civil rights act of 1964 also bans discrimination based on sex.
    - jolux 4y ago
      Which part, as of Bostock, also forbids employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ajross 4y ago
  Owning a business is not a right, though. Public commerce is pervasively regulated in all sorts of ways that might plausibly constitute "speech". The first amendment guarantees your right to make your opinions heard to all who want to listen. It doesn't say anything about making a buck doing it.
  - ROTMetro 4y ago
    Owning a business is most definitely a right. One of the highest. It falls under 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' and is explicitly a right given by the constitution. It is on the same as familial association which is also a right legally recognized as being granted by 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'.
    - ajross 4y ago
      It comes from Locke, actually, and the third right enumerated was explicitly "property". But this is strawmanning anyway. I'm not saying the government has the right to seize property (that's covered quite explicitly under the fourth amendment). I'm saying that there is no right to operate a public business without regulation. And sometimes regulation says "you can't police what your customers say with your product". Which is why I have a hard time taking some people seriously on this argument, which is so precisely analogous to the Twitter situation where they stand on the other side. (FWIW: I think Masterpiece v. Colorado was absolutely correctly decided. Twitter doesn't have to put anything on their cakes that they don't want to say.)
      - ROTMetro 4y ago
        Sorry, I'm a little confused by your post(I didn't follow this story originally and was, um, indisposed when it all happened so I don't know any of the larger social discussions that occured at the time other than a few newspaper articles). I'm was raised by hippies to be a diehard libertarian with a son who has had a lot of judgements and pain in his life because of who he is (and who he is is amazing so f all yall who judge him without knowing him). So this is kind of an existential crisis for me. I'm really really grateful to read all these thoughts. I was absolutist about individual rights. But this discuss has me seeing that the absolutist view can allow people to be denied basic freedoms too (like how blacks were in the past). Each side is actually advocating for rights in this scenario, no matter which side I take. Before I would say the government can't limit rights, so tough luck to people who have theoretic constitutional rights but can't actually take advantage of those rights because society as a whole denies them to them over something arbitrary (race, sexual preference). Now I'm not sure. Our Government was created to ensure rights are protected from the tyranny of the majority as much as to protect from government tyranny (hence religious freedoms, freedom of speech, etc). This discussion has me seeing that protecting protected classes need a way that they can actually experience the rights given to them by the constitution and that is no different than the government enforcing freedom of religion. I'm kind of at the point of seeing that past freedoms (to discriminate) resulted in non government imposed limiting of peoples (minorities, those with non-standard sexual preferences) basic freedoms (freedom to travel, be in public life, associate, have the same life experiences as others). I think you are saying that businesses shouldn't have compelled speech but that the government can regulate business so that protected classes have their basic rights to enjoy/live life actually made available? Sorry, not trying to be dense, just possibly adjusting some major life long beliefs.
ROTMetro 4y ago
Can you point to something establishing what you say it true? The specific situation you reference would seem to totally be a violation under my argument but taht doesn't invalidate my argument (especially since I did not mention a specific baker). In the situation I presented would you grant that no rights are violated?
- hexane360 4y ago
  You claimed "the baker in your example was willing to bake them a cake. They were never denied a cake". That's 1) referencing a specific baker (the one GP mentioned with a definite article) and 2) a positive claim about that baker. From the very first page of the Colorado Court of Appeals order on Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-op-bel-colo-app.pdf https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111...: >In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake. >The parties did not dispute any material facts. Masterpiece and Phillips admitted that the bakery is a place of public accommodation and that they refused to sell Craig and Mullins a cake because of their intent to engage in a same-sex marriage ceremony. The distinction Masterpiece argued was that they were discriminating against Craig and Mullins on the basis of gay marriage, not on the basis of being gay. See e.g. Elane Photography v Willock for why this argument doesn't work.
  - ROTMetro 4y ago
    'design and create' that is not purchasing a standard service but is commissioning a custom work.
    - hexane360 4y ago
      Even taking that line on face value (although I would argue that the rest of the quotes portray a different story), the distinction between "standard service" and "custom work" is nigh-useless when divorced from the content of the custom service, which weren't discussed ("Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake."). If a diner said "we'll make you a hamburger, but we won't make one without onions", and said that only because of a customer's race, that would be transparent discrimination. In other words, you can refuse custom work that goes against your principles, but you can't refuse custom work to someone that goes against your principles. And in the Masterpiece case, the content of the custom work wasn't discussed.
MisterMower 4y ago
That is a huge misrepresentation of the facts of the case. Of course he refused before they discussed any styling: the same sex couple wanted a wedding cake. It didn’t matter what styling it had, making any such custom cake for them would be an implicit endorsement of their behavior, which was contrary to his deeply held religious beliefs.

rayiner 4y ago

> By being a business owner in a community, you give up certain civil liberties because you have increased power to infringe upon the civil rights of others. Big [citation needed] here. The Constitution doesn’t say you give up your rights by being a business owner and participating in the economy.

three_seagrass 4y ago
Constitution doesn't matter when it's federal law. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: > Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_II%E2%80%94public_accommodations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title...
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  > Constitution doesn't matter when it's federal law. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: The US constitution overrides other US laws, not the other way around.
  - three_seagrass 4y ago
    Then cite where the constitution explicitly protects discrimination against protected classes. The problem citing the constitution here is it's an argument from ignorance. You can't ignore federal laws just because the constitution doesn't say anything about them.
    - jolux 4y ago
      > You can't ignore federal laws just because the constitution doesn't say anything about them. Not unless you're Sam Alito, no.
    - Supermancho 4y ago
      > Constitution doesn't matter when it's federal law. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 > The US constitution overrides other US laws, not the other way around. > Then cite where the constitution explicitly protects discrimination against protected classes. That reply was not about protected classes, per se. Please don't strawman off constructive criticism. Acknowledge you made a bad assertion or ignore it as irrelevant to your point.
      - three_seagrass 4y ago
        - Asking where the constitution talks about protected classes is a loaded question, because it's protected by federal law. - Stating the constitution overrides federal law is an argument from ignorance, because the constitution doesn't say anything about discrimination against protected classes to override it with. Selectively ignoring the context of this conversation (i.e. "it's not about that per SE") to make my comment look like an unrelated straw man is cherry picking. The problem with constitutionalists declaring freedom of association here is that the courts have repeatedly, undeniably upheld that the federal laws protecting civil rights are more important than the centuries old document (or, in a way, linked to the 14th amendment).
        Supermancho 4y ago
        > Constitution doesn't matter when it's federal law. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 > The US constitution overrides other US laws, not the other way around. > Stating the constitution overrides federal law is an argument from ignorance, It is not an argument from ignorance. There was no argument about discrimination made. There was a reply (a correction) to point out a flaw in your argument. You are intentionally trying to pretend there was no error in your own argument by circling back to an orthogonal point. It was simply incorrect on its own to say "Constitution doesn't matter when it's federal law." I don't understand why you are bending over backwards, to defend something that doesn't matter to the points that matter to you, at all. You have been striking out against people who are trying to help you have a stronger argument, by pointing out weakness. That's something worth thinking about in the future. GL with whatever.
- syshum 4y ago
- ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
  Relevantly to this discussion, the civil rights act of 1964 also bans discrimination based on sex.
  - jolux 4y ago
    Which part, as of Bostock, also forbids employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ajross 4y ago
Owning a business is not a right, though. Public commerce is pervasively regulated in all sorts of ways that might plausibly constitute "speech". The first amendment guarantees your right to make your opinions heard to all who want to listen. It doesn't say anything about making a buck doing it.
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  Owning a business is most definitely a right. One of the highest. It falls under 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' and is explicitly a right given by the constitution. It is on the same as familial association which is also a right legally recognized as being granted by 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'.
  - ajross 4y ago
    It comes from Locke, actually, and the third right enumerated was explicitly "property". But this is strawmanning anyway. I'm not saying the government has the right to seize property (that's covered quite explicitly under the fourth amendment). I'm saying that there is no right to operate a public business without regulation. And sometimes regulation says "you can't police what your customers say with your product". Which is why I have a hard time taking some people seriously on this argument, which is so precisely analogous to the Twitter situation where they stand on the other side. (FWIW: I think Masterpiece v. Colorado was absolutely correctly decided. Twitter doesn't have to put anything on their cakes that they don't want to say.)
    - ROTMetro 4y ago
      Sorry, I'm a little confused by your post(I didn't follow this story originally and was, um, indisposed when it all happened so I don't know any of the larger social discussions that occured at the time other than a few newspaper articles). I'm was raised by hippies to be a diehard libertarian with a son who has had a lot of judgements and pain in his life because of who he is (and who he is is amazing so f all yall who judge him without knowing him). So this is kind of an existential crisis for me. I'm really really grateful to read all these thoughts. I was absolutist about individual rights. But this discuss has me seeing that the absolutist view can allow people to be denied basic freedoms too (like how blacks were in the past). Each side is actually advocating for rights in this scenario, no matter which side I take. Before I would say the government can't limit rights, so tough luck to people who have theoretic constitutional rights but can't actually take advantage of those rights because society as a whole denies them to them over something arbitrary (race, sexual preference). Now I'm not sure. Our Government was created to ensure rights are protected from the tyranny of the majority as much as to protect from government tyranny (hence religious freedoms, freedom of speech, etc). This discussion has me seeing that protecting protected classes need a way that they can actually experience the rights given to them by the constitution and that is no different than the government enforcing freedom of religion. I'm kind of at the point of seeing that past freedoms (to discriminate) resulted in non government imposed limiting of peoples (minorities, those with non-standard sexual preferences) basic freedoms (freedom to travel, be in public life, associate, have the same life experiences as others). I think you are saying that businesses shouldn't have compelled speech but that the government can regulate business so that protected classes have their basic rights to enjoy/live life actually made available? Sorry, not trying to be dense, just possibly adjusting some major life long beliefs.

ROTMetro 4y ago

Can you point to something establishing what you say it true? The specific situation you reference would seem to totally be a violation under my argument but taht doesn't invalidate my argument (especially since I did not mention a specific baker). In the situation I presented would you grant that no rights are violated?

hexane360 4y ago
You claimed "the baker in your example was willing to bake them a cake. They were never denied a cake". That's 1) referencing a specific baker (the one GP mentioned with a definite article) and 2) a positive claim about that baker. From the very first page of the Colorado Court of Appeals order on Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-op-bel-colo-app.pdf https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111...: >In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake. >The parties did not dispute any material facts. Masterpiece and Phillips admitted that the bakery is a place of public accommodation and that they refused to sell Craig and Mullins a cake because of their intent to engage in a same-sex marriage ceremony. The distinction Masterpiece argued was that they were discriminating against Craig and Mullins on the basis of gay marriage, not on the basis of being gay. See e.g. Elane Photography v Willock for why this argument doesn't work.
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  'design and create' that is not purchasing a standard service but is commissioning a custom work.
  - hexane360 4y ago
    Even taking that line on face value (although I would argue that the rest of the quotes portray a different story), the distinction between "standard service" and "custom work" is nigh-useless when divorced from the content of the custom service, which weren't discussed ("Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake."). If a diner said "we'll make you a hamburger, but we won't make one without onions", and said that only because of a customer's race, that would be transparent discrimination. In other words, you can refuse custom work that goes against your principles, but you can't refuse custom work to someone that goes against your principles. And in the Masterpiece case, the content of the custom work wasn't discussed.

MisterMower 4y ago

That is a huge misrepresentation of the facts of the case. Of course he refused before they discussed any styling: the same sex couple wanted a wedding cake. It didn’t matter what styling it had, making any such custom cake for them would be an implicit endorsement of their behavior, which was contrary to his deeply held religious beliefs.