Masterpiece Cakeshop and Its Implications [2018 National Lawyers Convention]
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 07. 2024
- What are the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission? On November 16, 2018, the Federalist Society's Religious Liberties Practice Group hosted a showcase panel on "Masterpiece Cakeshop and Its Implications".
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
-Prof. Thomas C. Berg, University of St. Thomas, Minnesota School of Law
-Prof. Gerard V. Bradley, University of Notre Dame Law School
-Louise Melling, ACLU Center for Liberty
-Moderator: Judge Andrew S. Oldham, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
The problem with this case is simple. This cake maker was not working out of his home. He is n fact a LLC which means he has took legal steps to seperate himself from the business. As a busineess, serving the public, this business falls under the discrimination laws. The same owner could in turn refuse to serve black people, other religions etc. SCOTUS got this one wrong or more likely ruled with preference to christianity .
8:20 This "other vendors are available" argument is bunk and shameful for people who claim to be originalists and textualists.
The very purpose of antidiscrimination laws in places of public accommodation is to ensure people in legally protected groups are not publicly humiliated.
To be told "go elsewhere," would-be customers must first be publicly humiliated.
"Go elsewhere" fails too because the compelling government interest is to stomp out discrimination, not allow it to fester.
53:41 The issue is NOT refusing all services to gay people.
He's wrong about the Piggie Park case. The restaurant was willing to sell Blacks every item on the menu. Piggie Park had Black customers AND employees. But Blacks were banned from eating in the dining room BECAUSE of the devout Baptist owner's sincerely held religious belief that racial integration was an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.
Equal means getting the SAME things in the SAME place at the SAME time.
Masterpiece Cakeshop sold wedding cakes to straight couples but outright refused to sell wedding cakes to gay couples. The sole distinction is sexual orientation, ie, Masterpiece Cakeshop indisputably discriminated against THIS and SEVEN previous gay couples.
And not just for wedding cakes, for cupcakes and ANY ITEMS to be used for a wedding.
Now religous liberty trumps civil rights. America will be so much better off when jesus is seen as mythology.
I disagree with this whole argument. There were "gay" people in biblical times. Gay is based on sexual preference. That's how persons define the lifestyle. One life style should not be able to make demands that ate in direct conflict with another. If this was a Muslim case, there would have been no case at all.
You do know that there were multiple arguments
Gay and straight are sexual orientations. They are not "preferences."
I presume you would not say you prefer one sex for attraction and romance, but you're open to romance and attraction with the opposite sex too.
Gays don't have lifestyles. They have lives. Just like straight people.
The religion of the baker is immaterial. Interestingly, ONLY evangelicals make a point of being a-holes and refusing to abide by laws all others must follow.