I predict that the Supreme Court of the United States will decide
that the First Amendment trumps civil rights laws in Masterpiece Cakeshop v.
Colorado Civil Rights Commission, because our government may not force
us to express messages that
violate religious convictions.
Having read the oral arguments I think that a SCOTUS
majority will hold that a Christian baker enjoys a First Amendment right to refuse the request of a gay
couple to create a custom wedding cake that expressly celebrates a gay marriage.
He may not be punished
for violating state civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination against
homosexuals.
I can’t imagine that the Court would uphold a
civil rights law that allows an atheist, for example, to force a devout
Christian baker to create a cake with a message that says that “Jesus is a
myth,” or that “God is imaginary.”
Make no mistake though, a baker operating a
business open to the public may not lawfully discriminate against atheists or
gays in violation of public accommodations laws. Such people cannot lawfully be
refused service when it comes to buying any cake in the shop, for instance, but
they cannot force a baker to express creative ideas which violate his First Amendment
rights.
So the baker may be punished if he puts a sign in his window that
says “We do not bake cakes for gays,” but may not be punished for refusing
to create cakes which expressly celebrate gay weddings.
Likewise, an African American sculptor operating a business open
to the public violates public accommodations laws if he refuses to serve folks
he doesn’t like, but may not be forced to create a cross which expressly supports
a Ku Klux Klan service.
This is a no-brainer in my opinion.
I’ll be surprised if SCOTUS doesn’t
decide that the First Amendment trumps civil rights laws.
Well, that's encouraging. You've at least partially retreated from your previous support for slavery.
ReplyDeleteSlavery? Why, I've never supported any such thing. :)
DeleteYou've previously supported the "public accommodation laws," which require some people to work for other people whether they want to or not. That is, they require people to allow themselves to be enslaved.
DeleteI still support "public accommodation laws," as you say, but it's quite a stretch to think they enslave anyone, Tom.
DeleteWhat word other than enslavement would you used to describe a legal power to compel someone to work for you whether he wants to or not?
DeleteLaws... like if the law compels you to drive on the right side of the road are you enslaved by that requirement?
DeleteNo. Words mean things. If you prefer the constitutional language ("involuntary servitude") to "slavery," that works as well. While we could argue on whether or not "side of the road" laws are a good idea, they are not forcibly extracted labor, aka involuntary servitude, aka slavery. "Bake the cake, whether you agree to or not," is.
ReplyDeleteYou are compelled to drive on the right side "whether you agree to or not," is "involuntary servitude" is it not? Suppose you want to drive on the right side only if a straight person is coming toward you but not if it's a gay person? Are you not enslaved by such compulsion? I understand that you don't believe in civil rights laws but that doesn't mean that such laws are unconstitutional. They do not amount to slavery.
DeleteNo, you are not compelled to drive on the right side. You're not compelled to drive at all.
DeleteSlavery is compelled WORK FOR OTHERS.
You're not this dumb, Tim.
You're not compelled to start a business open to the public or to start a business at all. Traffic rules require you to "work" for the safety of all the public. If you sell generic cakes to straights, you are compelled to sell them to gays as well. That does not amount to slavery. I'm dumb perhaps, but at least smart enough to know that.
DeleteYou're right. I'm not compelled to start a business.
ReplyDeleteIf I do start a business, I can't be RIGHTFULLY compelled to any particular good or service to any particular person. My labor and my property are mine to dispose of as I see fit.
"Open to the public" is an interesting way of saying "shut the fuck up and do as you're told, slave."
"RIGHTFULLY" is your opinion, Tom and I don't think that SCOTUS would agree with it. So how do you get around "Open to the public?" You can start at PRIVATE cake baking club where only you decide who will be members. If it's not open to the public you aren't subject to public accommodations laws.
ReplyDeleteThere's no need to "get around" "open to the public." The phrase is not a promise that anyone and everyone gets anything and everything they might happen to want.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, in my city of 100,000, I'm aware of precisely one store that has an "open to the public" sign -- and quite a few that "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."