Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples

[Geilinor]

Christian "moral" law ends when you have a business open to the public.

No, it doesn't. The notion is ridiculous. Morality doesn't just go out the window simply because you decide to offer a service to the public.

How do you determine what "moral law" is? Can a person refuse to comply with any law because it violates their religious beliefs? The government has never recognized that view.

[Auralia]

Your religious views are irrelevant when it comes to baking.

Your religious views are irrelevant when you open a business to the public.

No, they most certainly are relevant.

You can't force them on others.

I'm a little confused as to how exercising the freedom of property and freedom of contract constitutes "forcing beliefs on others."

[Dyakovo]

Baking a cake is not participating in a wedding.

I think it is sufficiently connected to believe that it is wrong, and most likely so did the baker. In any event, the law doesn't case if the belief makes any sense, only that it is sincere.

You think incorrectly.

[Des-Bal]

Want to show me where I said they did?

I like it when you communicate points poorly then become aggressive instead of clarifying when someone gets confused.

[The Black Forrest]

Baking a cake is not participating in a wedding.

I think it is sufficiently connected to believe that it is wrong, and most likely so did the baker. In any event, the law doesn't case if the belief makes any sense, only that it is sincere.

Baking a cake is a religious practice?

Don't recall Jesus saying don't bake cakes for nancy boys.

[Auralia]

An RFRA does not override anti-discrimination provisions.

It might. To my knowledge, it hasn't really been tested yet, except in New Mexico, and that case was clearly decided incorrectly.

Also, it was ruled to only apply to the federal government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

It was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. But it continues to be applied to the federal government, for instance in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, because Congress has broad authority to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized.

There are state RFRAs separate from the federal RFRA.

[Mavorpen]

Your religious views are irrelevant when it comes to baking.

Your religious views are irrelevant when you open a business to the public.

No, they most certainly are relevant.

You can't force them on others.

I'm a little confused as to how exercising the freedom of property and freedom of contract constitutes "forcing beliefs on others."

Mysteriously enough, you've completely refused to cite any relevant case law backing this up.

[Dyakovo]

You can't force them on others.

I'm a little confused as to how exercising the freedom of property and freedom of contract constitutes "forcing beliefs on others."

Then you need to think a bit harder.

[Des-Bal]

Ah so it's simply "YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!!!! I DO WHAT I WANT!!!"

Why would you think that?

[The Black Forrest]

Your religious views are irrelevant when it comes to baking.

Your religious views are irrelevant when you open a business to the public.

No, they most certainly are relevant.

When it comes to your customers. No it doesn't.

You can't force them on others.

I'm a little confused as to how exercising the freedom of property and freedom of contract constitutes "forcing beliefs on others."

Those are irrelevant. Freedom of property is limited by the simple "open" sign.

Freedom of contract? Don't recall having to sign a contract defining what ingridients are in the cake; how it's to be baked or who may eat."

[Geilinor]

An RFRA does not override anti-discrimination provisions.

It might. To my knowledge, it hasn't really been tested yet, except in New Mexico, and that case was clearly decided incorrectly.

Also, it was ruled to only apply to the federal government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

There are state RFRAs separate from the federal RFRA.

You're claiming that the RFRA applies, so show us the Colorado RFRA and it's text.

[Dyakovo]

No, they most certainly are relevant.



I'm a little confused as to how exercising the freedom of property and freedom of contract constitutes "forcing beliefs on others."

Mysteriously enough, you've completely refused to cite any relevant case law backing this up.

Gee, I wonder why...

[Mavorpen]

An RFRA does not override anti-discrimination provisions.

It might. To my knowledge, it hasn't really been tested yet, except in New Mexico, and that case was clearly decided incorrectly.

There's no "might." There's utterly no reason to believe that it would.

[Geilinor]

All I can find for a Colorado RFRA is this failed bill, which the legislature didn't even vote on: http://www.hslda.org/Legislation/State/co/2008/COSB112/default.asp

[Auralia]

Want to show me where I said they did?

Sure, right here:

No, the purpose was to demonstrate what the Supreme Court has stated when it comes to neutrality and general applicability, two criteria that have to be met for RFRA to not be applied.

The bit of the opinion you quoted has nothing to do with the RFRA, so obviously the purpose of the passage can't have been to demostrate when RFRA does and does not apply.

Further, the whole point of RFRAs is that government must still demonstrate that a restriction of freedom of religion is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest even when the restriction is a neutral law of general applicability.

[Auralia]

All I can find for a Colorado RFRA is this failed bill, which the legislature didn't even vote on: http://www.hslda.org/Legislation/State/co/2008/COSB112/default.asp

True. I only argued that if there was a Colorado RFRA, the baker might have succeeded in his claim.

Mavorpen and I are discussing a similar case, Elaine Photography v. Wilcock, which took place in New Mexico which does have an RFRA.

[Geilinor]

Want to show me where I said they did?

Sure, right here:

No, the purpose was to demonstrate what the Supreme Court has stated when it comes to neutrality and general applicability, two criteria that have to be met for RFRA to not be applied.

The bit of the opinion you quoted has nothing to do with the RFRA, so obviously the purpose of the passage can't have been to demostrate when RFRA does and does not apply.

Further, the whole point of RFRAs is that government must still demonstrate that a restriction of freedom of religion is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest even when the restriction is a neutral law of general applicability.

Elaine Photography never appealed under the RFRA, to my knowledge, so the judge must have determined that it was the least restrictive means.

[Auralia]

It might. To my knowledge, it hasn't really been tested yet, except in New Mexico, and that case was clearly decided incorrectly.

There's no "might." There's utterly no reason to believe that it would.

Of course there is. The purpose of anti-discrimination law is to ensure that minorities have equal access to goods and services. If a victim of public accommodations discrimination is easily able to find another public accommodation willing to provide them with service, then the government can't really argue that forcing the person who engaged in the discrimination to provide the service is the least restrictive means of ensuring that the victim of discrimination has access to that service.

[Mavorpen]

Sure, right here:

No, the purpose was to demonstrate what the Supreme Court has stated when it comes to neutrality and general applicability, two criteria that have to be met for RFRA to not be applied.

I'll wait for you to show me where I said that.

The bit of the opinion you quoted has nothing to do with the RFRA, so obviously the purpose of the passage can't have been to demostrate when RFRA does and does not apply.

Except, if you actually read what I posted, I said that the purpose is to demonstrate what the Supreme court said about a subject that can be then applied within the scope of RFRA. Nowhere did I say that the purpose of the section was to DIRECTLY address RFRA.

Further, the whole point of RFRAs is that government must still demonstrate that a restriction of freedom of religion is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest even when the restriction is a neutral law of general applicability.

Right.

Which has utterly nothing to do with the actual case since it was between two private parties.

[Kazakhstangapore]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/06/21795833-judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples
appears that if you own a private business you cant decide who you do business with or not anymore
in this story a judge ordered a Colorado baker to make a cake for a gay couple who married in Massachusetts and wanted a wedding cake to celebrate in Colorado. The Judge said if the baker refused then he would have to pay a fine.

OP thought: I don't like it when some same sex couples use their sexual orientation to force people into doing things their way and if they didn't fold they would face a lawsuit for discrimination. and I read the story their is also discrimination on part of the judge & the gay couple they are forcing someone to do something that goes against their religious beliefs.

So NS any words?

there's absolutely no discrimination towards the baker. there's a lot towards the gay couple, but none towards the baker. your point is also moot, because what if a bakery decided not to serve people of color, a different religion, or anything that disagrees with what they believe in.

[Auralia]

Elaine Photography never appealed under the RFRA, to my knowledge, so the judge must have determined that it was the least restrictive means.

Elaine Photography did make an RFRA claim. The NM Supreme Court ruled it didn't apply, because apparently "the state or any of its political subdivisions, institutions, departments, agencies, commissions, committees, boards, councils, bureaus or authorities" does not include the legislature or the judiciary.

[Mavorpen]

Of course there is. The purpose of anti-discrimination law is to ensure that minorities have equal access to goods and services. If a victim of public accommodations discrimination is easily able to find another public accommodation willing to provide them with service, then the government can't really argue that forcing the person who engaged in the discrimination to provide the service is the least restrictive means of ensuring that the victim of discrimination has access to that service.

Of course it can.

You've refused to give a reason why it can't.

[Auralia]

Except, if you actually read what I posted, I said that the purpose is to demonstrate what the Supreme court said about a subject that can be then applied within the scope of RFRA. Nowhere did I say that the purpose of the section was to DIRECTLY address RFRA.

What you said was "neutrality and general applicability [are] two criteria that have to be met for RFRA to not be applied." This is dead wrong. RFRAs apply regardless of whether the law is neutral or general applicable.

Further, the whole point of RFRAs is that government must still demonstrate that a restriction of freedom of religion is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest even when the restriction is a neutral law of general applicability.

Right.

Which has utterly nothing to do with the actual case since it was between two private parties.

The case took place in the New Mexico courts, and was the result of a claim under a law passed by the New Mexico legislature. Elaine Photography paid a fine ordered by the New Mexico courts. Of course the government is involved.

[Auralia]

Of course there is. The purpose of anti-discrimination law is to ensure that minorities have equal access to goods and services. If a victim of public accommodations discrimination is easily able to find another public accommodation willing to provide them with service, then the government can't really argue that forcing the person who engaged in the discrimination to provide the service is the least restrictive means of ensuring that the victim of discrimination has access to that service.

Of course it can.

You've refused to give a reason why it can't.

Because the victim was able to find another person who was willing to offer the service, then the government's interest was accomplished without needing to force the other person to offer the service instead. This is clearly a less restrictive means of accomplishing the state's interest.

[Mavorpen]

Elaine Photography never appealed under the RFRA, to my knowledge, so the judge must have determined that it was the least restrictive means.

Elaine Photography did make an RFRA claim. The NM Supreme Court ruled it didn't apply, because apparently "the state or any of its political subdivisions, institutions, departments, agencies, commissions, committees, boards, councils, bureaus or authorities" does not include the legislature or the judiciary.

Which is irrelevant to the actual case.

Elaine Photography didn't argue that the government violated the NMRFRA. They in fact argued that it doesn't apply only to government agencies (which is bullshit) and argued that it applied to private parties and that asserting violations of RFRA in a court case between private parties is possible.

That is what the New Mexico Supreme Court argued against.