Where to Draw Line on Free Speech? Wedding Cake Case Vexes Lawyers

Gerald · 11-06-17, 08:40 PM

Floyd Abrams, the nation’s most prominent First Amendment lawyer, almost always argues in favor of free speech, but not in the case of a baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. Credit Christian Hansen for The New York Times.

Quote:

WASHINGTON — Floyd Abrams is the nation’s most prominent First Amendment lawyer, and he almost always argues in favor of free speech. But he has struggled with the case of a Colorado baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple.

Charged with discrimination, the baker said that forcing him to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding would hijack his constitutional right to express himself. Mr. Abrams’s first impulse was to agree.

“At first blush, the position of the baker had a good deal of appeal to me,” he said. “There was and is no reason to doubt his position was one of conscience, and the visage of state-ordered creation of what could be viewed as some sort of artistic offering certainly set some First Amendment flags flying.'

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/u...eme-court.html

Poor baker.

Buddahaid · 11-06-17, 08:52 PM

I think both parties to this are stupid. Geeze bake the damned cake and leave your personal feeling out of it and get over yourselves and buy a cake somewhere else.

Reece · 11-06-17, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendor

Poor baker.

Yes I agree!

STEED · 11-07-17, 08:10 AM

Similar cases here in the UK and Ireland a few years ago. It also came to light certain members of the gay community go out there way to cause friction leading to court cases. If going around doing that strikes me more of a lets make a fast buck in the courts. Most would just go else where for a cake.

Skybird · 11-07-17, 08:57 AM

The baker is nobody#s property and runs his own buiness, I assume at least. Declareing that he must accept just everybody as his custjm er - which means he must accept to do business and have a contract with just anybody - is a vilation of human rioghts. Of course he must have any right to have s sign in his wiondow: "No negros" or "No Jews". And the public has just any right to take not eof that, and to draw consequences form that by either not buying at this abkery anymore, or not caring.

The customer should have a right that any store must serve them, no matter what? Does this include that stores have any right to demand that peopole must buy at them, not at some other store?

This anti-discrimination law thing is hilarious. It always was.

Everybody who runs a business, shouzld and must have the right to decide whom he accepts as customer and wants to do bsuiness with and agrees on a contract, a treaty, an act of bartering. That is so profound that I do not even will to argue abiout it, that basic it is. I accept no reeducating and no moralising and no paternalising to play aorfund with and limit this, that profound I see it.

People and customers and compoanies must have the freedom to decide whom they accept as business partner, and whom, not. They necessarily also must accept any consequences form that. They then mjst decide whether they accept that conseqwuences, or alter their own decision scheme on whom to acept as business partners, or they must shot down andf nkvoe somewhere else, if they feel like it.

Nobody owns anyone else, n obody has a right to lay claim for th eother, nobody has a right to be liked, loved, accepted by somebody else. That is socialist, collectiovist, brainwashing, totalitarian, paternalistic drivel.

You cannot fight racism by forbidding racist opinions. Islam's behaviour shows that. The US racism problem shows it from the opposite direction.

Only enlightenment, and thus; culture, and family educaction help.

I rather accept some racist shop keepers her eor there, than the constant state-driven re-educaiton schmes and plans that int he end only limit freedom more and more and take respnnsiblity away form people and suibmit them to the self-claimed authority of the state.

The point is, while a racist shop may be there, I am not forced to buy there.

The point also is that what one sees as racism, another one does not necessarily agree on. And in our political correct times, these killer labels are swung like rhetorical war axes and broadswords just to silence unwanted opinions and pacify public opinion by consensus enforced by mobbing of anonymous masses.

This lawyer is wrong, and completely.

---

A bit more reason was shown by the German Constitutional High Court yesterday. There was a Muslim couple with a child, eligible for emelentary school, and two schools available in their neighbourhood: an ordinary public school 3 km away, and a Catholic school 250 meters away. They asked to be allowed into the Catholic school. The school said: Okay, but be advised that we are a deliberate Catholic school, and for our students, participation in Catholic religion courses and church services is mandatory, and parents have to agree to that by signing a legally binding declaration of consent. This is what I call the my-house-my-rules-masterrule. The couple did sign that, and the kid went to the school. Then they started to sue the school for forcing their Muslim child to attend said courses and services. They went through the various levels of the court system, lost everywhere, and finally adressed the Constitutional High Court - which thankfully now has refused to accept their case and drove them away, saying they have no valid claim to file at all.

I may or may not agree with religious schools, the point is: I am free to accept sending my kid to one, or choosing a public school. If this religious thing is so fundamental to me, then 2.5 km hardly shall make me waver.

We have had another court case two or three years ago, where a Catholic hospital was forced to accept a Muslim nurse wearing Islamic clothing. The judge said that the nurse knew it was a Catholic hposital with a certain dress code, did not mean that she shares respjnsiblity for her deicison to nevertheless ask for work there, nor means the fact the house is in ownerhsip by the Catholic church means it can rule that catholic values and rules shall not dominate there and demand its workers to comply with them. So, German courts do not decide consistsently on such "discrimination" claims. The ruling yesterday was anything but natural and to be expected, even if all courts before also refused the claim.

Onkel Neal · 11-07-17, 10:44 AM

Singers and celebrities were OK with declining to serve Trump at his inauguration

vienna · 11-07-17, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Singers and celebrities were OK with declining try to serve Trump at his inauguration

The big difference there was not a quid pro quo (money or other form of payment for goods or services), it was merely a case of the singers and celebrities not wanting to be associated with the politics of Trump. It is interesting you used the word "serve"; they were invited and decided to decline the invitation; there was no mandate involved and they were free to refuse; if Trump took umbrage, the problem was his, not theirs...

I am of two minds about the bakery issue; while I respect the concept, as the phrase goes, of "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone", there are times when the exercise of any right ends when it impinges on the rights of others; there is no such thing as an 'absolute right'; however, it is true activists do deliberately go out of their way to create situations in order to feed their own agendas. This works both ways: back in the early 80s, I was at a newsstand/bookstore in West Hollywood, an area with a very large gay population; there was suddenly a loud commotion involving a couple of gay men and a family consisting of a man, a woman and two very young children. Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies were right on the scene. The man with the children began to loudly and aggressively accuse the two gay guys of making sexual advances to the two small children, which was denied by the gay guys. I knew they had not made any such actions because I had been watching them, waiting for them to move because they were blocking my access to the guitar magazine section. I went up to one of the deputies and offered my testimony of what actually had happened; with a somewhat weary manner he told me it probably wouldn't be necessary; it seems the 'family' were part of some extreme evangelical Christian sect and had been pulling the same stunts for some time; in fact, the LEOs were pretty much fed up with them and had been mulling over whether to file charges of making false police reports against the 'activists'. As said, it cuts both ways...

<O>

Jimbuna · 11-07-17, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEED

Similar cases here in the UK and Ireland a few years ago. It also came to light certain members of the gay community go out there way to cause friction leading to court cases. If going around doing that strikes me more of a lets make a fast buck in the courts. Most would just go else where for a cake.

Yeah, created quite a stir at the time.

Platapus · 11-08-17, 02:24 PM

Part of being a professional is putting your personal feelings aside and abiding by the customs and ethics of your chosen profession.

In my opinion, that's what makes a person a professional instead of someone just earning money.

11-06-17, 08:52 PM	#2
Buddahaid Shark above Space Chicken Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 9,320 Downloads: 162 Uploads: 0	I think both parties to this are stupid. Geeze bake the damned cake and leave your personal feeling out of it and get over yourselves and buy a cake somewhere else. __________________ "However vast the darkness, we must provide our own light." Stanley Kubrick "Tomorrow belongs to those who can hear it coming." David Bowie

11-07-17, 08:10 AM	#4
STEED Lucky Jack Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Down Town UK Posts: 27,695 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 48	Similar cases here in the UK and Ireland a few years ago. It also came to light certain members of the gay community go out there way to cause friction leading to court cases. If going around doing that strikes me more of a lets make a fast buck in the courts. Most would just go else where for a cake. __________________ Dr Who rest in peace 1963-2017. To borrow Davros saying...I NAME YOU CHIBNALL THE DESTROYER OF DR WHO YOU KILLED IT!

11-07-17, 08:57 AM	#5
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,626 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	The baker is nobody#s property and runs his own buiness, I assume at least. Declareing that he must accept just everybody as his custjm er - which means he must accept to do business and have a contract with just anybody - is a vilation of human rioghts. Of course he must have any right to have s sign in his wiondow: "No negros" or "No Jews". And the public has just any right to take not eof that, and to draw consequences form that by either not buying at this abkery anymore, or not caring. The customer should have a right that any store must serve them, no matter what? Does this include that stores have any right to demand that peopole must buy at them, not at some other store? This anti-discrimination law thing is hilarious. It always was. Everybody who runs a business, shouzld and must have the right to decide whom he accepts as customer and wants to do bsuiness with and agrees on a contract, a treaty, an act of bartering. That is so profound that I do not even will to argue abiout it, that basic it is. I accept no reeducating and no moralising and no paternalising to play aorfund with and limit this, that profound I see it. People and customers and compoanies must have the freedom to decide whom they accept as business partner, and whom, not. They necessarily also must accept any consequences form that. They then mjst decide whether they accept that conseqwuences, or alter their own decision scheme on whom to acept as business partners, or they must shot down andf nkvoe somewhere else, if they feel like it. Nobody owns anyone else, n obody has a right to lay claim for th eother, nobody has a right to be liked, loved, accepted by somebody else. That is socialist, collectiovist, brainwashing, totalitarian, paternalistic drivel. You cannot fight racism by forbidding racist opinions. Islam's behaviour shows that. The US racism problem shows it from the opposite direction. Only enlightenment, and thus; culture, and family educaction help. I rather accept some racist shop keepers her eor there, than the constant state-driven re-educaiton schmes and plans that int he end only limit freedom more and more and take respnnsiblity away form people and suibmit them to the self-claimed authority of the state. The point is, while a racist shop may be there, I am not forced to buy there. The point also is that what one sees as racism, another one does not necessarily agree on. And in our political correct times, these killer labels are swung like rhetorical war axes and broadswords just to silence unwanted opinions and pacify public opinion by consensus enforced by mobbing of anonymous masses. This lawyer is wrong, and completely. --- A bit more reason was shown by the German Constitutional High Court yesterday. There was a Muslim couple with a child, eligible for emelentary school, and two schools available in their neighbourhood: an ordinary public school 3 km away, and a Catholic school 250 meters away. They asked to be allowed into the Catholic school. The school said: Okay, but be advised that we are a deliberate Catholic school, and for our students, participation in Catholic religion courses and church services is mandatory, and parents have to agree to that by signing a legally binding declaration of consent. This is what I call the my-house-my-rules-masterrule. The couple did sign that, and the kid went to the school. Then they started to sue the school for forcing their Muslim child to attend said courses and services. They went through the various levels of the court system, lost everywhere, and finally adressed the Constitutional High Court - which thankfully now has refused to accept their case and drove them away, saying they have no valid claim to file at all. I may or may not agree with religious schools, the point is: I am free to accept sending my kid to one, or choosing a public school. If this religious thing is so fundamental to me, then 2.5 km hardly shall make me waver. We have had another court case two or three years ago, where a Catholic hospital was forced to accept a Muslim nurse wearing Islamic clothing. The judge said that the nurse knew it was a Catholic hposital with a certain dress code, did not mean that she shares respjnsiblity for her deicison to nevertheless ask for work there, nor means the fact the house is in ownerhsip by the Catholic church means it can rule that catholic values and rules shall not dominate there and demand its workers to comply with them. So, German courts do not decide consistsently on such "discrimination" claims. The ruling yesterday was anything but natural and to be expected, even if all courts before also refused the claim. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 11-07-17 at 09:16 AM.

11-07-17, 10:44 AM	#6
Onkel Neal Born to Run Silent Join Date: Jan 1997 Location: Cougar Trap, Texas Posts: 21,385 Downloads: 541 Uploads: 224	Singers and celebrities were OK with declining to serve Trump at his inauguration __________________ SUBSIM - 26 Years on the Web Last edited by Onkel Neal; 11-07-17 at 07:30 PM. Reason: removed typo

11-08-17, 02:24 PM	#9
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,365 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Part of being a professional is putting your personal feelings aside and abiding by the customs and ethics of your chosen profession. In my opinion, that's what makes a person a professional instead of someone just earning money. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.