Disney Sues Desantis

I agree to a point. If the baker needed a city license can’t the city put requirements for the license. You can’t not allow black people in your business. You can’t not serve other minorities. If it was up to me I would allow all businesses to do business with whoever they want but they would have to post their bigotries on the door. I suspect bigoted businesses wouldn’t last long.

 

Its a valid point, but don’t we have the same threat running in the other direction potentially gutting first amendment protections?

 

I think you’re making good points. Race is subject to the highest level - strict scrutiny, which won’t apply to all classes. But religious liberty and free speech are both core and fundamental. So who wins if it’s race versus religion?

Roberts seemed really snippy about any discussion of race in the same sex marriage case. I think he found it accusatory or in bad faith. But it’s a very natural legal question to ask in my view.

 

Dwayne Wade is feeling the cake baker's love.

 

What if the Mouse finds a really liberal gay church to join and buy? Can it then argue that it has a religious obligation to promote LGBT inclusion?

 

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 256 F. Supp. 941 (D.S.C. 1966)


Defendant Bessinger further contends that the Act violates his freedom of religion under the First Amendment "since his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."

The constitutionality of the public accommodations section, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000a, has been fully considered and determined by the United States Supreme Court in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, et al., 379 U.S. 241, 85 S. Ct. 348, 13 L. Ed. 2d 258 (1964); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294, 85 S. Ct. 377, 13 L. Ed. 2d 290 (1964); see also Willis v. Pickrick Restaurant, D.C., 231 F. Supp. 396 (1964), appeal dismissed, Maddox v. Willis, 382 U.S. 18, 86 S. Ct. 72, 15 L. Ed. 2d 13 (1965).

The constitutional questions posed by defendants herein were before the Supreme Court in McClung and Atlanta Motel, supra, and were decided adversely to defendant's contentions. Consequently, defendant's defenses founded upon the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution are found by the court to be without merit in view of the McClung and Atlanta Motel cases, supra. It is noted that in McClung, Atlanta Motel and Pickrick Restaurant the motel and restaurants involved were admittedly places of public accommodation under the Act, there being no factual issue as to whether they came within the purview of same. Neither was any question raised that the restaurants involved therein were not principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises. The sole consideration before the lower courts and the Supreme Court in those *945 cases was the question of the constitutionality of the public accommodations provisions of the Act (Section 2000a).

Neither is the court impressed by defendant Bessinger's contention that the judicial enforcement of the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 upon which this suit is predicated violates the free exercise of his religious beliefs in contravention of the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is unquestioned that the First Amendment prohibits compulsion by law of any creed or the practice of any form of religion, but it also safeguards the free exercise of one's chosen religion. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261, 8 L. Ed. 2d 601 (1962). The free exercise of one's beliefs, however, as distinguished from the absolute right to a belief, is subject to regulation when religious acts require accommodation to society. United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944) (Mails to defraud); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1878) (polygamy conviction); Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S. Ct. 438, 88 L. Ed. 645 (1943) (minor in company of ward distributing religious literature in violation of statute). Undoubtedly defendant Bessinger has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This court refuses to lend credence or support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishments upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs.

 

Not necessarily. You can actually get there via two easy paths: (1) civil rights laws survive strict scrutiny or (2) food isn't protected expression. Each point is debatable, but you would avoid gutting the First Amendment.

Keep in mind that since we're talking about a law dealing with private actors, the strict scrutiny aspect of race (rooted in the Constitution) doesn't come into play. Now, the compelling interest aspect of race would come into play. But if there's a compelling interest in protecting people from race-based discrimination, I think there's also a compelling interest in protecting them from sex-based discrimination.

 

Similar argument, but different. (It's a great example of how racists have used these sorts of arguments, though.) My understanding is that we're talking about the compelled speech claim (the cake is artistic expression), not the free exercise claim.

 

Still public accommodations. The artistic framing was BS pretext. Kagan cited Piggie Park. She also mocked the self proclaimed artistic label by noting that Subway refers to their employees as “sandwich artists”. It’s all BS

 

Yes these could work, but as you say they are debatable. And the second option seems rather arbitrary, eg what of billboard sign makers?

It seems we might be able to do at least as well framing this issue about message, rather than identity. E.g. companies may not discriminate against classes of people, but can regulate their own expression. Here, bakers could not deny gay people any standard service but could also not be compelled by another party to write a particular message against their faith.

 

I think that would qualify as commercial speech, which receives less protection under the First Amendment.

My recollection could be wrong, but I don't think the issue in that case was the baker writing a specific message. Rather, it was the baker being steadfastly opposed to baking and decorating a cake for a gay wedding. He was arguing that making the cake itself was artistic expression.

 

In this case it’s the state telling the business who, when, and how they serve customers.

 

The biggest issue in the baker's case was that you couldn't pick the purported "gay" cake out of a lineup. It was the planned use of the cake that the baker objected to, not any objectionable message inherent to the design of the cake itself.

I agree a cake shop shouldn't be required to make a rainbow pride cake. But when you're talking about an ordinary, if pretty, wedding cake, where the only true distinguishing factor is the orientation of the purchaser, it's not speech that's at issue, just discrimination.

All of which is miles apart from punishing Disney for expressing its views on a political subject.

 

If a self identified "Christian" baker won't do a cake for a gay wedding as a violation of faith, neither should you bake a cake for a bar mitzvah, or even a secular wedding, or so many other examples. Otherwise, it appears like illegal prejudice, not religious exercise.

Found Fr. Jim's, who deserves the credit

 

Dear mr liberal. He baked cakes for gay people. Including the people on the suit apparently. What he wouldn't do was put certain content on cakes.

DeSantis wanted to legislate content and opinion.

Colorado wanted to legislate content and opinion.

Neither denies service to people of any persuasion.

Stop making it something it isnt to fit your narrative.

The baker is on the record for having served gays.

Sincerely,
Mr. Moderate CONSERVATIVE.

P.S. Do you not find it oddly ironic that you are mocking me about being moderate in a post where I call out both sides and clearly say DeSantis is wrong? A position I have held about the disney case from day one?

That is exactly what moderate is sir. I called out both aides equally. What uou want is for me to take liberal positions. For you anything right of your position is not moderate.

Its probably hard to see middle ground from your position so far on the left.

 

Yet to not do so would give people on opt in for religious discrimination.

To clarify, I am not saying the cases are identical. I am saying that in both cases the government tried to, by force, get a business to cater to the belief of said government.

It is my opinion (shared by even some liberals here I see) that neither of those are ok.

 

All true. Thing is, he did serve gays. That was established.

This would be like serving black people, but refusing a cake for a black panther party.

He serves everyone, bit he does limit content.

Disney wasnt denying anyone service either.

The government should not be in the business of forcing content and opinion on private business. And yes, as I keep saying... that includes the governor of Florida.

 

He is full of crap and doesnt speak for everyone. How does a secular website (this one hits home for me as a freelance designer) violate my faith?

If that site is promoting drugs or prostitution than yeH lol. And I wouldnt do it for a white straight man or a gay hispanic man.

I have the right as an artist to create whatever content I want.

If the government can force content, then in turn it can restrict it.

 

FTR, I agree if that is the case.
I am only speaking of content.

A plain cake does not have content.